It would make absolute sense to use Webview when the whole point of a Chrome browser is to use their own engine.
It's done that on the Windows version since day one.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Early Screenshots from the Mac Version of Google's Chrome Browser
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would make absolute sense to use Webview when the whole point of a Chrome browser is to use their own engine.
It's done that on the Windows version since day one.
Is this a serious question?
Here's a serious answer:
1) It's a LOT faster, especially on pages that use JavaScript excessively
2) It's a LOT less memory consuming (in conjunction with Firefox I'd even say "memory wasting")
3) It's more stable. Well, it's supposed to be, due to its architecture.
4) It's a bit cleaner, UI speaking
Oh, did I mention that it's a LOT faster?
On the other hand, the lack of features like add-ons and plug-ins might be a reason for one not to use it instead of Ffox.
Cheers,
Georg
No More Browsers!
As a web designer, the LAST thing I want is another web browser to have to worry about...Firefox and IE are enough.
Please Google...stop wasting your money on this useless project and invest in something that people actually need.
As a web designer, the LAST thing I want is another web browser to have to worry about...Firefox and IE are enough.
Please Google...stop wasting your money on this useless project and invest in something that people actually need.
It's a good point, but the key word is "posturing." They are not there yet. But note the rhetoric of the Bolsheviks in 1917. The intentions all sounded pretty good, just like Google's; yet look at how that turned out. Meanwhile, here in 2009, Google is assembling the pieces to be the leading spyware company in the entire space-time continuum. Will they "do no evil"? Check back in 2019...
I've seen web designers use this argument many times. The rendering engine is not a new one, it's Webkit I believe. If your page works in Safari, it should work in Chrome.
[hopefully I've remembered all that right. Someone do correct me if I'm wrong]
Actually, Chrome uses the same rendering engine that safari does: WebKit. The point is not to use their own engine, but to use process isolation for stability - so that if the flash plugin crashes in one tab, it doesn't bring everything else down with it. Genius.
Disagree, if only because new features force the competition to innovate. The Google browser has some damned nice features which I would like to see in other browsers.
My windows default browser is always firefox. But since i try chrome I always use the chrome althought never set it as default browser. Just for one reason that chrome is blazingly fast opened and become ready to use.
By using chrome i can feel the good of webkit which is lightweight html renderer, that actually i'm never feel with the safari. As my experience safari does not have much different in loading the browser.
Another part that a good idea is about home screen page that showing you most visited website. Thi is more usefull rather than have A web search page as default of firefox or just set default page as blank.
In the next version of chrome which is currrently devevloped have new feature multiple profile. This feature is usefull for one that have multiple account in one web. E.g. Have more than 2 accoun in gmail or yahoo.
Currently when we want to open the accounts at same time we need to open multiple browser for each account as the web session is handled globally in on browser. With exception th private mode Safari or incognito mode in chrome ver 1, which is give us different web session with the same browser at the same time. The multiple profile in Chrome will give us multiple web session at the same time. This is different multiple profile with firefox that we just can select one profile at a time.
But still default browser is firefox althought rarely to use
By using chrome i can feel the good of webkit which is lightweight html renderer, that actually i'm never feel with the safari. As my experience safari does not have much different in loading the browser.
Another part that a good idea is about home screen page that showing you most visited website. Thi is more usefull rather than have A web search page as default of firefox or just set default page as blank.
In the next version of chrome which is currrently devevloped have new feature multiple profile. This feature is usefull for one that have multiple account in one web. E.g. Have more than 2 accoun in gmail or yahoo.
Currently when we want to open the accounts at same time we need to open multiple browser for each account as the web session is handled globally in on browser. With exception th private mode Safari or incognito mode in chrome ver 1, which is give us different web session with the same browser at the same time. The multiple profile in Chrome will give us multiple web session at the same time. This is different multiple profile with firefox that we just can select one profile at a time.
But still default browser is firefox althought rarely to use
As a web designer you should welcome Chrome and any other standards-compliant web browsing. Standards-compliant web browsing (pushed by everyone except for Microsoft) is going to make your job a lot easier.
shiseiryu1 said:
You are absolutely correct about that. This is just a bunch of Chicken Little(tm) nonsense from gun-shy web developers who don't understand software.
what is supposed to happen? I just get a black screen flash by then "No preview available"
I don't like the big font size in the adress bar. I hate it on Windows as well.
The best argument for Google Chrome is it's very fast browsing speed, especially on sites that rely heavily on Javascript (or have a lot of ads). But I must say, Safari 4 (I'm using it right now) is much faster than Safari 3. So I don't really wait for Chrome, especially when I think about making myself vulnerable to Google's spies.
The best argument for Google Chrome is it's very fast browsing speed, especially on sites that rely heavily on Javascript (or have a lot of ads). But I must say, Safari 4 (I'm using it right now) is much faster than Safari 3. So I don't really wait for Chrome, especially when I think about making myself vulnerable to Google's spies.
I still cannot understand why google did not code chrome multi-platform from the start. Based on the time they take to release the OSX version, it looks like they are porting the windows version over to OSX.
From my experience, it is really not a good idea.
From my experience, it is really not a good idea.
Why so many negatives? If you don't want it, just don't use it. But options/competition is generally a good thing.
Well at least, now, you have to check your website with IE 6, IE7, IE8, firefox safari, opera. Adding another 1 should not a big problem. Yes chrome is near safari as it use webkit, but it may still give a little different result,as i found it on my web when the first try on chrome.
Haha, that's great.
Wonder why it doesn't work on my install?
It's not so much that it is posturing to become evil, it's that it is positioning itself to become the dominant superpower in the world of data aggregation. That, and the fact that nothing in this world is truly free, scares me. It's all about monetizing your little bits of data.
And while I'm on the topic, I hope Facebook goes under. That one scares me too.
That's a bizarre inference to make, when other hypotheses are so easy to come up with - like, um, not having yet hired/allocated a cocoa programmer for the task?
You're so right. All they need is a programmer who can type Cocoa with his left hand and Win32 with his right hand!
Use a custom hosts file, It's not as versatile as some of the firefox plugins, but it's dead easy and there are no problems with input manager hacks or safari updates.
I figured that was their thinking. Except Javascript doesn't have true pointers, so separate address spaces (processes) should not be necessary for complete separation of programs. Separate namespaces should be sufficient.
I remember Dashboard started out the same way. In 10.4 there was a separate Unix process for each widget, but then in 10.5 it became one shared process. I don't recall any single widget bringing down all my other widgets yet. However I imagine what Google have in mind is a bit more heavyweight than widgets.